Acre In, Acre Out Act This bill prescribes a new requirement for any acquisition of land by the Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture that would result in a net increase of total land acreage under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, or the Forest Service. The department concerned must offer for sale an equal number of acres of federal land that is under the same jurisdictional status. The bill exempts from this requirement any easements acquired to facilitate management of federal lands. Land sold pursuant to this bill shall be offered for sale at fair market value (based on local comparable sales), with monthly price reductions if the land is not sold in six months. All net proceeds from the sale of federal lands pursuant to this bill shall be deposited directly into the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.
If enacted, HB 172 would significantly alter how federal land management occurs, as it puts a limit on the expansion of federal resources. This could have long-term implications for conservation efforts, local economies, and environmental protections, as reduced federal land could affect related public services and resource management strategies. Importantly, proceeds from any land sales mandated by the bill would be allocated to the Treasury to reduce public debt, which adds a fiscal dimension to the environmental policy being shaped by this legislation.
House Bill 172, known as the 'Acre In, Acre Out Act', introduces a regulatory stipulation that mandates no net increase in the total acreage of certain federal lands under the jurisdiction of agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service. The bill requires that for any new land acquisitions by these agencies that would increase their landholdings, an equivalent amount of current federal land must be sold off, maintaining a balance in acreage under federal control. The intent is to prevent unsustainable growth of federal lands while allowing for management flexibility within existing frameworks.
The discussions surrounding HB 172 have highlighted notable points of contention regarding land rights and environmental policy. Proponents argue that these measures will lead to more efficient management of federal resources and fiscal responsibility, while opponents raise concerns that the bill could facilitate the privatization of federal lands, jeopardizing conservation efforts and public access. The requirement to sell land along with acquiring new land raises further questions about the types of lands that might be sold and how this could impact local communities and ecosystems in the long run.